$80 Million-Five Empty Seats-No Head Coach...
At a presentation concerning Macon's largest proposed infrastructure investment in generations, one councilwoman raised uncomfortable questions while much of the city's elected leadership was absent.
By Ron Dominique | Macon Moonline Investigates
There was something decidedly unusual about Tuesday evening's presentation concerning Macon's proposed $80 million drinking water and wastewater treatment projects. It wasn't the enormous price tag, the engineering projections, or the familiar warnings about aging infrastructure. Macon residents have been hearing those arguments for months, and Moonline has already devoted considerable attention to the proposals and their potential financial consequences.
What made October 20 noteworthy was the absence of five elected officials, the concerns expressed by one councilwoman who did attend, and the continuing absence of a permanent city administrator at a time when Macon is contemplating one of the largest financial commitments in its history.
Macon Municipal Utilities General Manager Dana Ulmer once again explained the need for substantial improvements to the city's treatment facilities. There is little disagreement that aging infrastructure must eventually be addressed. Safe drinking water and dependable wastewater treatment are essential public services. But recognizing the need for improvements is considerably different from demonstrating that a particular $80 million proposal represents the most appropriate and financially responsible solution.
Mayor Holman was absent Tuesday evening, along with Councilmembers Olinger, Walk, Bernhardt, and Ulrich. Their reasons for missing the presentation have not been established, and legitimate scheduling conflicts are certainly possible. Nevertheless, five elected officials, including the mayor, were missing from a discussion involving projects that could influence Macon's utility rates and municipal finances for decades.
Councilmembers Jerry Thompson, Cheryl Blaise, and Teresa Thrasher attended. Thompson and Thrasher did not ask questions during the presentation, leaving Blaise as the only council member present who publicly challenged aspects of the information being presented
Blaise, who represents Ward 4, expressed concern about feeling pressured surrounding the proposed projects. She also questioned Ulmer about data centers, introducing an issue that deserves more public examination than it has received.
The connection is potentially significant. Depending on their design and cooling technology, large data centers can require substantial quantities of water. If Macon's proposed facilities are being sized partly to accommodate future industrial development, that possibility should be clearly explained to the people who will ultimately finance the infrastructure.
Moonline has not established that Macon has entered into any agreement to supply a data center, nor that a particular data center is included in the engineering projections. But Blaise's questioning raises a legitimate concern about how future demand is being calculated. Are the proposed facilities intended primarily to satisfy existing residential and commercial requirements, projected population growth, regulatory obligations, or anticipated industrial customers? If additional capacity is being planned for future development, residents deserve to understand how much and who would be expected to pay for it.
Even more revealing was Blaise's concern about pressure surrounding the decision-making process.
An elected councilwoman should be able to examine an $80 million proposal without feeling compelled to accept conclusions before she is satisfied with the evidence. Her responsibility is not to make life easier for utility administrators, engineers, or financial advisers. It is to represent the residents who elected her, including those who may spend the next three decades paying for the decisions made today.
We do not know precisely what circumstances prompted Blaise's remarks. Her expression of concern does not establish that anyone threatened her, attempted to influence her improperly, or demanded a particular vote. But the distinction between presenting legitimate evidence of an urgent infrastructure problem and creating an atmosphere of pressure is important enough to warrant further explanation.
Municipal officials regularly face difficult decisions, particularly when infrastructure is deteriorating and construction costs continue to rise. Urgency may be entirely justified. Yet urgency should never become a substitute for independent examination, nor should legitimate questions about project capacity, alternatives, or financing be mistaken for opposition to providing clean water.
Blaise deserves credit for raising those concerns publicly. She did not need to possess the technical expertise of an engineer to recognize that questions remained unanswered. That is precisely why communities elect representatives rather than simply turning over financial decisions to the organizations proposing the expenditures.
Her comments also brought me back to a question I raised repeatedly during Tuesday's presentation: Who is independently examining these projects on behalf of the City of Macon?
Macon Municipal Utilities has its own management responsibilities. The engineers engaged to develop the projects have their professional responsibilities, and financial advisers can explain the available borrowing arrangements. But the city itself needs someone capable of examining the entire undertaking from the broader perspective of its residents, municipal finances, and long-term obligations.
Macon currently has no permanent city administrator.
I've described the situation before using a football analogy, and Tuesday evening offered another reason to revisit it. A team may have capable players, experienced assistant coaches, and an offensive coordinator who knows the playbook, but somebody still needs to oversee the entire operation. Somebody needs to evaluate the strategy, recognize weaknesses, and decide whether the proposed play actually serves the team's interests.
In municipal government, an experienced city administrator can provide that coordinating leadership, working with the mayor and council to evaluate recommendations, examine alternatives, and ensure that the city's broader interests receive proper consideration. The administrator does not replace the elected officials or their responsibility for final decisions, but can provide the professional scrutiny necessary to help them make those decisions intelligently.
With no permanent administrator in that position, Macon faces an obvious question about how those responsibilities are currently being fulfilled. Who is independently reviewing the proposed treatment capacity, comparing engineering alternatives, examining the long-term financing implications, and ensuring that council members receive more than the recommendations of those directly involved in developing the projects?
The absence of a permanent administrator does not establish that such reviews have not occurred. But the public deserves to know who is performing them, what conclusions have been reached, and whether those findings are available for examination.
Tuesday's presentation did little to resolve those concerns. Much of the discussion returned to familiar explanations about the condition of the existing facilities, regulatory requirements, financing opportunities, and the consequences of delay. Those considerations may be entirely legitimate, but repetition does not establish that every engineering assumption is correct or that all reasonable alternatives have received adequate consideration.
There is also the unresolved matter of the November 3 election.
The proposed $80 million financing question has been associated with that ballot, yet the City Council's September 8 attempt to combine the drinking water and wastewater projects encountered a significant obstacle when the ordinance failed on a 3–3 vote, with two council members absent.
At the beginning of Tuesday evening's presentation, Ulmer directly acknowledged the consequences of that failed ordinance. Reading from a prepared statement, he told the audience, “If the ordinance is not put back onto an agenda and passed, the bond question on the ballot will be null and void.” Later in the meeting, financial adviser Charlie Zitnik explained that the water and sewer systems had never been formally combined by ordinance and that the November 3 vote would not be valid unless the council took the necessary action. When asked whether another combining ordinance might be introduced, Ulmer replied, “My crystal ball is not any better than yours is, Ron.” In other words, the project's own representatives acknowledged that the ballot question's validity depended on further council action.
There is also the possibility that officials could eventually seek emergency action if infrastructure conditions justify it. No such plan has been established through the information presently available to us, and speculation should not be confused with a decision already made. Any future emergency proposal would deserve the same careful examination of its necessity, legal authority, and financial consequences.
What continues to concern me is not simply the amount of money involved, although $80 million is an extraordinary figure for a community the size of Macon. It is the apparent disconnect between the magnitude of the proposed commitment and the level of independent municipal oversight that has been publicly demonstrated.
Five elected officials missed Tuesday's presentation. The city continues without a permanent administrator, and one councilwoman who attended expressed concern about pressure while questioning assumptions that could affect the size and cost of the proposed facilities.
Those circumstances do not prove that the projects are unnecessary, improperly designed, or financially unsound. They do, however, provide ample reason to insist upon a more complete public accounting before Macon assumes obligations that could extend across an entire generation.
A child entering kindergarten this fall could be approaching middle age before a 30-year financing arrangement reaches its scheduled conclusion. Some of the residents who will eventually help pay for these facilities have not yet been born.
Perhaps the proposed projects will ultimately prove to be exactly what Macon needs. If the engineering is sound, the capacity appropriate, and the financing the best available option, those conclusions should withstand serious independent examination.
Councilwoman Cheryl Blaise demonstrated Tuesday evening that she was willing to ask questions rather than simply accept another presentation. The rest of Macon's elected leadership owes its constituents the same degree of attention.
Because when the final bill arrives, it won't be addressed to the engineers, the consultants, or the people operating the water treatment plants. It will be paid by the people of Macon
Regards Maconites,
Ron Dominique - Editor
